NHL examining other long term contracts

The NHL is now considering withdrawing the registration of existing contracts, specifically for Pronger, Hossa, Savard and Luongo. It feels these contracts are similar to Kovalchuk's and are now investigating.

I just mentioned this in the Kovalchuck thread, pretty amazing news if they are actually taking this seriously. It could just be the NHL trying to appear a bit more consistant. Although it was the arbitor who brought it up, is he completely independant from the league?

Will get really messy. Very glad Z and Mule aren't mentioned but I'm sure other GM's will cry foul about them if any of their players are actually affected by this.

The NHL is now considering withdrawing the registration of existing contracts, specifically for Pronger, Hossa, Savard and Luongo. It feels these contracts are similar to Kovalchuk's and are now investigating.

LOL! Can you just imagine if Chicago loses Hossa (and/or Keith) after the off-season they've already been through?

But really, I doubt anything will come of it, since roster moves have already been made around these deals. They'd be screwing teams majorly to revoke them now.

Mule, Hank, Savard, Lecavalier, Keith, Hossa, Pronger, Luongo... I think that's it. Maybe Dipietro, but that absurdity of a contract is punishment enough for Isles. None are as bad as Kovy's. Hossa, Pronger, and Luongo are the only ones that go past 40, and Pronger is a 35+ so that should stand.

If they do nullify any of them, they should probably do all of them, but give teams some time to rework the deals before making them UFAs.

None of them were ANYWHERE near as absurd as Kovy's... I think Luongo's, Hossa's and even Franzen's to some extent are pushing the envelope, but due to the fact that they don't peter out as drastically, or for as long on the back-end makes them NOWHERE near the same... Zetterberg's can't even BEGIN to be argued, as the Wings have signed and kept MANY players to 40 and it's not at all unreasonable to expect Z to, as for Pronger's, if they want to draw his out to 50 it shouldn't matter, it's 35+ and they're still going to be on the hook for the cap hit, so if they want to eat that cap for that long after, they should be allowed to...

All and all, I think it'd be absurd to go after contracts that were already approved, but moving forward, SOME form of regulation should be put on them...

I still like the idea that any contract that exceeds the age of 40, will count against the cap, regardless of when the player retires... I'd even be fine with them dialing it back to 38 or 39, but I don't think there should be a duration limitation, as teams should be allowed to retain their own assets, for as long as they want...

I think its a bit ridiculous to go back to these long term contracts after they've already been instated for a while. These organizations have built their teams around these long-term contracts and their respective cap-hits. If the league wanted to do something about it, they should have done something when the contracts were first announced like the Kovy situation. You don't give teams time to fill in the rest of their salary cap before cutting out the most crucial piece.

Am I the only one that thinks the NHL is walking a fine line with this? If we limit the earning potential for the players too much we could see more of the best European players go to the KHL for way more money.

I agree some of these contracts are absurd but once a player actually hits the ice for anything under the contract it should remain in effect. A little late for the NHL to go back now and quite frankly I don't see how this can go anywhere anyway. The players union is not going to allow the NHL to go back and nullify contracts years later, and rightfully so. Its like filing a grievance a couple years after the incident, too late. There must be some time limit in the CBA for either party to challenge?

"Holmstrom gets more attention around the net than a pretty girl around closing time!" - Mickey observes Thomas Holmstrom getting hit on by the Dallas Stars. (January 12, 2001)

...With the next set of NHL-NHL Players’ Association collective bargaining talks two years away, there is great uncertainly in the market, leaving more and more teams content to stick with players they’ve drafted and can comfortably afford. Beyond that, there are more than a few GMs who hope commissioner Gary Bettman will now use the Kovalchuk ruling to aggressively attack other front-loaded deals signed by players like Henrik Zetterberg, Chris Pronger, Marc Savard and Marian Hossa in recent years.

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, in fact, confirmed on Monday that the league is still investigating the Pronger (seven years, $35 million) and Hossa (12 years, $63 million) contracts.

“Bettman’s got the hammer,” said one GM. “It’s up to him whether to use it.”...

Maybe someone can enlighten me as I do not understand why Pronger's contract keeps getting referenced. Yes, it is front loaded and yes it brings him up to age 42 or 43, but how is it circumvention? Even if he retires at 38, the cap hit will remain until the end of the deal, nothing is being circumvented here. The only thing I can think of is that they are getting a lower cap hit for the next few years in exchange for a cap hit in the later years that they will likely have without a player (I suppose in the hopes that the cap goes up and it isn't as big of an impact).

I think any contract signed that ends with the player being 41+ should not be accepted. Don't go back on any that are more than a year old, but all from this season should be looked at. Most players retire by 40 and so there's no reason to sign them until they're 47/44. Only a handful of players have ever made it that far. Mr. Howe being the best of them

I agree some of these contracts are absurd but once a player actually hits the ice for anything under the contract it should remain in effect. A little late for the NHL to go back now and quite frankly I don't see how this can go anywhere anyway. The players union is not going to allow the NHL to go back and nullify contracts years later, and rightfully so. Its like filing a grievance a couple years after the incident, too late. There must be some time limit in the CBA for either party to challenge?

While those contracts have already been signed for awhile, the players in question have yet to play under those contracts. I agree and I think everyone agrees (including the league), that once the player starts getting paid under a contract, you can't go back and void it, but they are talking about contracts that are just starting for the 2010-11 season.

I think its a bit ridiculous to go back to these long term contracts after they've already been instated for a while. These organizations have built their teams around these long-term contracts and their respective cap-hits. If the league wanted to do something about it, they should have done something when the contracts were first announced like the Kovy situation. You don't give teams time to fill in the rest of their salary cap before cutting out the most crucial piece.

Exactly.

While many of these contracts are questionable, and Franzen and Z's are certainly pushing the limit, I don't see how they can go back that far to question these contracts if they didn't at the time. Even if this in no way affected the Wings, I still think it's ridiculous that they would approve them and then essentially change their mind.

They can examine the contract for Z and Mule all they want, no way should they be "withdrawn". Lidstrom is playing right now at age 40. Chelios was playing for us till he was 47. Hasek played with us when he was 43. Yzerman played when he was 40. Zetterberg and Franzen are signed till 40 which is a realistic age to still be playing, at least on this franchise.